A small but growing body of research suggests that when it comes to murder, the smaller the population and the further the distance from a major urban area, the greater the chances are that the person doing the killing will be a family member or an intimate partner. There are several differences between urban and rural areas with respect to geography, community dynamics, crime control strategies, and family and intimate partner abuse patterns that underscore rural-urban variations in the kinds of family and intimate partner violence that can lead to murder. While these differences provide some support for the hypothesis that family and intimate partner murders will be more prevalent in rural rather than in urban communities, this research was conducted to develop more cogent and theoretically defensible place-based models of the correlates of family and intimate partner homicide. The research involved quantitative analyses of FBI Supplementary Homicide Report (SHR) public use data from 1980-1999. The SHR data contain details about murders and nonnegligent homicide in the United States including information about the geographic location, and when known, the relationship between the victim and the perpetrator. The murders from this dataset were grouped into three categories: family, intimate partner, and all other murders. Analysis of the data found that for the entire 20-year period, rates for family and intimate partner murders declined regardless of place, whereas rates of intimate partner murders increased only with rurality. Possible explanatory variables are discussed and steps for future research are suggested. References, tables, figures